H. R. 1022

[sundaynfl]

Mrs. MCCARTHY (Democrat) of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

 

Link

 

If you own guns you may want to look at this! Don't they have anything better to do with their time?!

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Good. Sorry they are taking away your assault weapons Mr. Koresh.

[Kid Cid]

<Ban me! Ban me now!>, I gotta go buy a Tec-9 now.

[spain]

Screw the 2nd ammendment!

[Big John]

There is zero chance of this bill getting through congress AND getting the President's approval. And no veto here would be overridden.

[yo mama]

Screw the 2nd ammendment!

 

2nd amendment protects a "well-regulated" miltia. This law would merely regulate said militia. What's the problem?

Edited February 28, 2007 by yo mama

[sundaynfl]

Good. Sorry they are taking away your assault weapons Mr. Koresh.

 

 

Obviously, you have never shot an AK-47...

 

The NRA-ILA take:

 

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;

McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

 

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”

 

McCarthy’s verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

 

With the nation’s murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy’s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

 

• Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

 

• Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

 

• All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)

 

• All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip.”

 

• Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)

 

• Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

 

• 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

 

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned “assault weapon” with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

 

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose

H.R. 1022!

 

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

[bushwacked]

Obviously, you have never shot an AK-47...

 

The NRA-ILA take:

 

 

 

 

Not a fan of gun control but I put is much credence in a press release from the NRA as I would one from PETA.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The NRA are a bunch of crackpot lunatics.

[Doc Holliday]

The NRA are a bunch of crackpot lunatics.

 

 

 

Why?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Not a fan of gun control but I put is much credence in a press release from the NRA as I would one from PETA.

 

yup they are loonies and i own a lot of guns... not so worried about the ak and the bull crap that they take my shotgun and deer rifle is a crap...

[skins]

Ive been a gun owner for almost 20 years and I pay no attention to the NRA dummies.

[TheGrunt]

[Enters Big John] There is zero chance of this bill getting through congress AND getting the President's approval!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Enters Cowboy Bush] And no veto here would be overridden.

 

+1

 

It'll never pass.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Why?

 

 

Because they have no common sense. They claim to support groups such as hunters. A real outdoorsmen has no need for assault rifles. The only groups that benefit from a complete lack of any gun control are those that wish to obtain said weapons for illicit purposes. And yes, I know even with gun control laws in place that a black market exists and some things get through. That still is no excuse for at least some common sense gun control laws to protect our citizens and our law enforcement officers.

Edited March 1, 2007 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[DMD]

M-1 and a Mini-14??????????????????????????????

 

Ridiculous.

 

If I actually owned any guns, this would make me mad but it doesn't affect me.

 

But it does seem very, very wrong and unrealistic.

[Kid Cid]

Because they have no common sense. They claim to support groups such as hunters. A real outdoorsmen has no need for assault rifles. The only groups that benefit from a complete lack of any gun control are those that wish to obtain said weapons for illicit purposes. And yes, I know even with gun control laws in place that a black market exists and some things get through. That still is no excuse for at least some common sense gun control laws to protect our citizens and our law enforcement officers.

 

Wrong! There are many legitimate collectors of guns and weponry that would be adversly affected by this bill. The majority of the weapons that this bill attempts to ban (at least those not controlled by the military or paramilitary organization like the local police department) are in the hands of private collectors, obtained legally, and used in a responsible fashion. So this bill does nothing more than to attempt to make a splash banning something that really doesn't need a law against it, but does hurt a number of law abiding citizens.

[Front Row]

A ridiculous waste of taxpayers money. These types of bills are driven by those seeking political gain.

 

see my sig

[Duchess Jack]

I believe that there is most certainly a limit or line where guns need to be regulated. I don't know enough about guns to say where that line is - but there's a point where weaponry gets out of hand. The collector issue is dumb. What if I wanted to collect live grenades, RPGs or even a tatical nuke. That would be out of hand. I believe that logic applies to many guns.

 

As far as the well maintained militia goes... would we not need grenades, RPGs and such to be a well maintained militia? If folk are worried about invasion... or the government, I think that these items would needed to be considered 'well maintained'. Otherwise, folk might as well be using muskets. So, the militia things sounds silly.

 

I have no issue with legitimate ownership though. I believe in crazy ass background checks. I also believe that folk that consider themselves 'collectors' should need to get a permit to be a 'collector' that should be even harder to get than a normal gun.

[Front Row]

Painting with a pretty broad brush, I'd say.

 

D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

 

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

 

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

 

`(iii) a pistol grip;

 

`(iv) a forward grip; or

 

`(v) a barrel shroud.

 

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

 

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

 

`(i) a second pistol grip;

 

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

 

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

 

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

 

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

[Kid Cid]

I believe that there is most certainly a limit or line where guns need to be regulated. I don't know enough about guns to say where that line is - but there's a point where weaponry gets out of hand. The collector issue is dumb. What if I wanted to collect live grenades, RPGs or even a tatical nuke. That would be out of hand. I believe that logic applies to many guns.

 

I may not be understanding you correctly, but why is the collecting issue dumb? People collect guitars, hummels and some even collect pirate memorabilia. What's so wrong about collecting guns? And furthermore, what's wrong with collecting grenades or rpgs if they are used in a law abiding and and non-life threatening manner?

 

I can see your point about the tactical nuke though. It's just really tough to find a range where you could light one of those off.

[TimC]

Of course all guns should be banned. The second-hand bullets that comes out of guns is much more dangerous than the second-hand smoke out of cigs.

 

Regulate me more and more, Gubment!

[Duchess Jack]

I may not be understanding you correctly, but why is the collecting issue dumb? People collect guitars, hummels and some even collect pirate memorabilia. What's so wrong about collecting guns? And furthermore, what's wrong with collecting grenades or rpgs if they are used in a law abiding and and non-life threatening manner?

 

I can see your point about the tactical nuke though. It's just really tough to find a range where you could light one of those off.

 

 

I guess my point is that saying that nothing should be off limits because of 'collecting' is dumb. I have no issues with collectors - or guns for that matter. I personally feel that folk should not be collecting live grenades or rpgs. I can see folk doing this with things that aren't live or armed, but I believe that they would need a heavy collecter - almost museum - permit.

 

What if I wanted to collect vials of smallpox?

[Furd]

I love firing high-capacity rifles like AK-47s, AR-15s, Mini-14s, 10/22s.

 

I don't like, but I understand, if the government wanted to preclude Americans from certain weapons like the AKs, M-16/AR-15, Tec-9s.

 

The problem is, what do you ban and how do you ban it? When you start getting into descriptions of grips, barrels, magazines and whatnot, you start, IMO, crossing into "legitimate" weapon territory. Its too goddamn complicated.

 

Its not that much of a problem. They should just leave it alone.

[Duchess Jack]

I collect Nazi memorabilia.

 

And by that, I mean Jews.

 

any thoughts about renting them out for tax time?

[i_am_the_swammi]

"legitimate" weapon territory.

 

Yes, I'd feel much better if my skull was blown apart by a legitimate weapon as opposed to an illegitimate weapon.

 

Ban all guns...period.